I do not enter the suspicion of a conspiracy theory lightly, but 
whilst trying to contact one of the women I found my email to her 
being answered by someone already known for their involvement in 
trying to bring about the public ridicule of another prominent Indian.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Mason" <premanandpaul@>
> wrote:
> > ... and the stories have sounded no more clear as time has gone 
> > on.
> To me, and this is not universal, I knew or was on courses with most
> of the people in SS. To me, most were credible as people. Different
> than say, if SS were written by strangers, or worse, the top 10
> posters on FFL.  And SS collaborated explicit things I had heard 25
> years earlier. Thus, SS files was perhaps more credible for me than
> for you. 
> > Now to assume MMY's 'guilt' on the basis of third-hand material 
> > is very faulty. 
> Its odd, to me, how people wrap "extra stuff" around more simple
> events. "Guilt" ? I know you use the term loosely, but there is no 
> legal, and most would argue no ii) moral crime here. It may be an 
> ethical abuse (younger women) but I don't buy that. Jennifer was,
> based on her attendance at my TTC the year before, and appearances,
> probably 23-24 at the time of her "reading mail" to MMY. (Though she
> was was probably not mistaken as 'the chosen one' as Tom apparently
> thought he was). 
> And she, while graceful and refined, IMO, is not someone I would 
> termed as sheltered or naive. Demure perhaps. Adults do things, are
> responsible for their choices -- even if they regret them later,  
> are ill-effected by them. 
> Perhaps it was  iv) an abuse of power -- teacher / student -- I have
> argued that in the past -- but have recanted some. When pants are
> down, or dhotis and dresses on the floor, power dynamics may 
>  -- or reverse, wobble, and occilate -- who has power over whom when
> nakedness befalls?   
> So who (what crazy bastards :) ) is "assuming guilt" when, at least
> IMO, guilt is a non-issue? A more corect rendering of your sentence
> would be, IMO,  " Now to assume the truth of the allegations on the
> basis of third-hand material is very faulty. "
> Well, even then, there is a case being made by SS, see my comments
> above on credible sources. But more importantly, even with credible
> sources, i don't have terribly strong opinions that the stories are
> true or not. I look at it, as many of the uncertainties in life,
> probabilistically. 
> Much more importantly, i don't have strong reactions one way or
> another if SS is true or not. To me, the impact of the stories being
> true is not large for me. I figure a yogi knows something more than 
> about energy flows. And its his business. And even if not, i don't
> walk out on other teachers and mentors because they banged a 24-yr 
> attractive blonde. For some, I actually silently applaud. 
> > So for me the problem I have with the 'Sexy Sadie' file is not 
> > whether it has been published, just that it does not 'scan' well. 
> Thats not a universal problem, thats a problem you have with them.
> > In 
> > fact many years ago I had the same feeling about Erik Von 
> > books, and then I watched a documentary which took his claims 
apart ...
> So you have a history of problems in this area. 
> "very interesting..." :)
> > In the case of the allegations about MMYs sexuality it is not 
that I 
> > disbelieve all the claims made, 
> Ok, a shift in positions? 
> > just that I doubt MMY ever had actual 
> > sexual intercourse with a woman (however close he might have 
> OK. So if he, naked, was about to have intercourse with a naked
> willing 24-yrold participant, but didn't -- is that a huge 
> for you compared to if he did?  
> > Actually, for the record, I suspect 
> "I suspect" are key words. Pure opinion, no fact. Much less 
> than the SS files.
> > that most if not all the material 
> > currently circulating about MMYs alleged sexuality has been put 
> > solely to discredit MMY, 
> haha. i smell a conspiracy theory. 
> And your suspicions have little basis in the actual history of the
> genesis of the files.  
> > simple as that, a rather ramshackle attempt 
> > at cocking a snoot at him, rather than an orchestrated attack, 
> > perhaps a mixture of both.
> Any other possblities? 
> Perhaps to share information one found interesting? 
> Perhaps to provide some material, which along wit h so much other
> material, experiences, knowledge, allows others to make up their 
> on things?

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to